Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 991 | control, N = 501 | treatment, N = 491 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 98 | 49.93 ± 13.20 (25 - 74) | 50.03 ± 13.30 (25 - 74) | 49.83 ± 13.24 (28 - 73) | 0.941 |
Unknown | 1 | 1 | 0 | ||
gender | 99 | 0.692 | |||
f | 73 (74%) | 36 (72%) | 37 (76%) | ||
m | 26 (26%) | 14 (28%) | 12 (24%) | ||
occupation | 99 | 0.776 | |||
day_training | 2 (2.0%) | 2 (4.0%) | 0 (0%) | ||
full_time | 12 (12%) | 6 (12%) | 6 (12%) | ||
homemaker | 8 (8.1%) | 5 (10%) | 3 (6.1%) | ||
other | 2 (2.0%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (4.1%) | ||
part_time | 17 (17%) | 8 (16%) | 9 (18%) | ||
retired | 25 (25%) | 12 (24%) | 13 (27%) | ||
self_employ | 4 (4.0%) | 2 (4.0%) | 2 (4.1%) | ||
student | 2 (2.0%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (4.1%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (2.0%) | 1 (2.0%) | 1 (2.0%) | ||
unemploy | 25 (25%) | 14 (28%) | 11 (22%) | ||
marital | 99 | 0.692 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (1.0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.0%) | ||
divore | 10 (10%) | 7 (14%) | 3 (6.1%) | ||
in_relationship | 1 (1.0%) | 1 (2.0%) | 0 (0%) | ||
married | 25 (25%) | 13 (26%) | 12 (24%) | ||
none | 54 (55%) | 25 (50%) | 29 (59%) | ||
seperation | 3 (3.0%) | 2 (4.0%) | 1 (2.0%) | ||
widow | 5 (5.1%) | 2 (4.0%) | 3 (6.1%) | ||
edu | 99 | 0.636 | |||
bachelor | 26 (26%) | 9 (18%) | 17 (35%) | ||
diploma | 19 (19%) | 12 (24%) | 7 (14%) | ||
hd_ad | 3 (3.0%) | 2 (4.0%) | 1 (2.0%) | ||
postgraduate | 8 (8.1%) | 4 (8.0%) | 4 (8.2%) | ||
primary | 5 (5.1%) | 2 (4.0%) | 3 (6.1%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 13 (13%) | 8 (16%) | 5 (10%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 23 (23%) | 12 (24%) | 11 (22%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 2 (2.0%) | 1 (2.0%) | 1 (2.0%) | ||
fam_income | 99 | 0.921 | |||
10001_12000 | 4 (4.0%) | 1 (2.0%) | 3 (6.1%) | ||
12001_14000 | 5 (5.1%) | 2 (4.0%) | 3 (6.1%) | ||
14001_16000 | 5 (5.1%) | 2 (4.0%) | 3 (6.1%) | ||
16001_18000 | 3 (3.0%) | 1 (2.0%) | 2 (4.1%) | ||
18001_20000 | 4 (4.0%) | 3 (6.0%) | 1 (2.0%) | ||
20001_above | 19 (19%) | 9 (18%) | 10 (20%) | ||
2001_4000 | 15 (15%) | 10 (20%) | 5 (10%) | ||
4001_6000 | 11 (11%) | 5 (10%) | 6 (12%) | ||
6001_8000 | 9 (9.1%) | 5 (10%) | 4 (8.2%) | ||
8001_10000 | 7 (7.1%) | 3 (6.0%) | 4 (8.2%) | ||
below_2000 | 17 (17%) | 9 (18%) | 8 (16%) | ||
medication | 99 | 88 (89%) | 46 (92%) | 42 (86%) | 0.320 |
onset_duration | 97 | 14.81 ± 10.53 (0 - 56) | 16.11 ± 11.46 (1 - 56) | 13.43 ± 9.36 (0 - 35) | 0.212 |
Unknown | 2 | 0 | 2 | ||
onset_age | 96 | 35.36 ± 14.31 (10 - 65) | 33.91 ± 13.15 (10 - 58) | 36.87 ± 15.42 (15 - 65) | 0.314 |
Unknown | 3 | 1 | 2 | ||
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 991 | control, N = 501 | treatment, N = 491 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 99 | 3.09 ± 1.20 (1 - 5) | 3.16 ± 1.25 (1 - 5) | 3.02 ± 1.16 (1 - 5) | 0.567 |
recovery_stage_b | 99 | 17.94 ± 2.70 (9 - 24) | 17.72 ± 2.75 (9 - 23) | 18.16 ± 2.66 (13 - 24) | 0.417 |
ras_confidence | 99 | 30.13 ± 5.01 (18 - 45) | 29.62 ± 4.30 (19 - 40) | 30.65 ± 5.64 (18 - 45) | 0.308 |
ras_willingness | 99 | 12.01 ± 2.00 (7 - 15) | 11.82 ± 1.92 (8 - 15) | 12.20 ± 2.08 (7 - 15) | 0.343 |
ras_goal | 99 | 17.48 ± 2.99 (11 - 25) | 17.26 ± 2.84 (12 - 24) | 17.71 ± 3.16 (11 - 25) | 0.453 |
ras_reliance | 99 | 13.19 ± 2.90 (7 - 20) | 13.06 ± 2.65 (8 - 18) | 13.33 ± 3.16 (7 - 20) | 0.650 |
ras_domination | 99 | 9.90 ± 2.32 (3 - 15) | 10.24 ± 2.25 (3 - 15) | 9.55 ± 2.37 (3 - 15) | 0.141 |
symptom | 99 | 30.31 ± 9.60 (14 - 56) | 31.32 ± 9.83 (14 - 55) | 29.29 ± 9.34 (15 - 56) | 0.294 |
slof_work | 99 | 22.58 ± 4.73 (10 - 30) | 22.40 ± 4.25 (13 - 30) | 22.76 ± 5.22 (10 - 30) | 0.711 |
slof_relationship | 99 | 25.49 ± 5.89 (11 - 35) | 24.80 ± 5.76 (13 - 35) | 26.20 ± 5.99 (11 - 35) | 0.237 |
satisfaction | 99 | 20.54 ± 6.93 (5 - 35) | 19.08 ± 6.45 (5 - 31) | 22.02 ± 7.15 (5 - 35) | 0.034 |
mhc_emotional | 99 | 11.14 ± 3.87 (3 - 18) | 10.74 ± 3.69 (3 - 17) | 11.55 ± 4.04 (4 - 18) | 0.300 |
mhc_social | 99 | 14.95 ± 5.52 (5 - 30) | 15.00 ± 5.46 (7 - 30) | 14.90 ± 5.64 (5 - 27) | 0.927 |
mhc_psychological | 99 | 21.99 ± 6.33 (6 - 36) | 21.54 ± 5.96 (9 - 36) | 22.45 ± 6.72 (6 - 36) | 0.478 |
resilisnce | 99 | 16.68 ± 4.53 (6 - 30) | 16.18 ± 4.12 (6 - 24) | 17.18 ± 4.91 (7 - 30) | 0.273 |
social_provision | 99 | 13.67 ± 2.85 (5 - 20) | 13.12 ± 2.39 (8 - 20) | 14.22 ± 3.19 (5 - 20) | 0.054 |
els_value_living | 99 | 17.14 ± 3.03 (5 - 25) | 16.60 ± 2.44 (12 - 22) | 17.69 ± 3.47 (5 - 25) | 0.072 |
els_life_fulfill | 99 | 12.72 ± 3.38 (4 - 20) | 11.88 ± 3.17 (5 - 19) | 13.57 ± 3.42 (4 - 20) | 0.012 |
els | 99 | 29.86 ± 5.87 (9 - 45) | 28.48 ± 4.86 (18 - 38) | 31.27 ± 6.50 (9 - 45) | 0.017 |
social_connect | 99 | 26.55 ± 9.22 (8 - 48) | 27.60 ± 8.25 (8 - 45) | 25.47 ± 10.07 (8 - 48) | 0.252 |
shs_agency | 99 | 14.46 ± 5.02 (3 - 24) | 13.68 ± 4.57 (3 - 21) | 15.27 ± 5.36 (3 - 24) | 0.116 |
shs_pathway | 99 | 16.49 ± 3.97 (4 - 24) | 15.96 ± 3.81 (8 - 24) | 17.04 ± 4.10 (4 - 24) | 0.177 |
shs | 99 | 30.96 ± 8.57 (7 - 48) | 29.64 ± 8.02 (13 - 45) | 32.31 ± 8.98 (7 - 48) | 0.122 |
esteem | 99 | 12.70 ± 1.75 (10 - 20) | 12.90 ± 1.67 (10 - 18) | 12.49 ± 1.83 (10 - 20) | 0.246 |
mlq_search | 99 | 15.10 ± 3.21 (3 - 21) | 14.78 ± 3.04 (6 - 21) | 15.43 ± 3.38 (3 - 21) | 0.318 |
mlq_presence | 99 | 13.56 ± 4.14 (3 - 21) | 13.34 ± 3.59 (5 - 21) | 13.78 ± 4.66 (3 - 21) | 0.603 |
mlq | 99 | 28.66 ± 6.47 (6 - 42) | 28.12 ± 5.72 (12 - 40) | 29.20 ± 7.18 (6 - 42) | 0.407 |
empower | 99 | 19.39 ± 4.30 (6 - 30) | 18.86 ± 3.93 (11 - 30) | 19.94 ± 4.62 (6 - 30) | 0.213 |
ismi_resistance | 99 | 14.68 ± 2.59 (5 - 20) | 14.30 ± 2.15 (10 - 19) | 15.06 ± 2.95 (5 - 20) | 0.145 |
ismi_discrimation | 99 | 11.47 ± 3.16 (5 - 20) | 12.18 ± 2.90 (5 - 19) | 10.76 ± 3.28 (5 - 20) | 0.024 |
sss_affective | 99 | 10.00 ± 3.69 (3 - 18) | 10.42 ± 3.49 (3 - 18) | 9.57 ± 3.88 (3 - 18) | 0.255 |
sss_behavior | 99 | 9.60 ± 3.86 (3 - 18) | 10.18 ± 3.92 (3 - 18) | 9.00 ± 3.75 (3 - 18) | 0.129 |
sss_cognitive | 99 | 8.11 ± 3.69 (3 - 18) | 8.60 ± 3.87 (3 - 18) | 7.61 ± 3.48 (3 - 18) | 0.185 |
sss | 99 | 27.71 ± 10.34 (9 - 54) | 29.20 ± 10.21 (9 - 54) | 26.18 ± 10.35 (9 - 54) | 0.148 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.16 | 0.166 | 2.84, 3.48 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.140 | 0.235 | -0.601, 0.322 | 0.554 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.134 | 0.246 | -0.348, 0.616 | 0.587 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.422 | 0.353 | -0.270, 1.11 | 0.236 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.026 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.7 | 0.401 | 16.9, 18.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.443 | 0.570 | -0.674, 1.56 | 0.438 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.194 | 0.556 | -1.28, 0.894 | 0.727 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.536 | 0.799 | -1.03, 2.10 | 0.505 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.6 | 0.724 | 28.2, 31.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.03 | 1.029 | -0.983, 3.05 | 0.317 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.839 | 0.766 | -0.662, 2.34 | 0.278 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.944 | 1.103 | -1.22, 3.11 | 0.396 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.033 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.8 | 0.285 | 11.3, 12.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.384 | 0.406 | -0.411, 1.18 | 0.346 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.621 | 0.302 | -1.21, -0.029 | 0.044 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.726 | 0.435 | -0.127, 1.58 | 0.101 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.035 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.3 | 0.442 | 16.4, 18.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.454 | 0.628 | -0.776, 1.69 | 0.471 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.405 | 0.503 | -1.39, 0.582 | 0.424 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.46 | 0.725 | 0.039, 2.88 | 0.048 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.037 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.409 | 12.3, 13.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.267 | 0.581 | -0.873, 1.41 | 0.648 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.375 | 0.412 | -0.433, 1.18 | 0.367 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.00 | 0.594 | -0.161, 2.17 | 0.097 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.036 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.2 | 0.321 | 9.61, 10.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.689 | 0.457 | -1.58, 0.206 | 0.134 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.267 | 0.433 | -1.12, 0.582 | 0.540 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.45 | 0.623 | 0.228, 2.67 | 0.023 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.032 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 31.3 | 1.352 | 28.7, 34.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -2.03 | 1.921 | -5.80, 1.73 | 0.292 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.382 | 1.105 | -2.55, 1.78 | 0.731 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.899 | 1.593 | -4.02, 2.22 | 0.575 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.4 | 0.669 | 21.1, 23.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.355 | 0.951 | -1.51, 2.22 | 0.710 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.183 | 0.666 | -1.49, 1.12 | 0.784 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.127 | 0.959 | -1.75, 2.01 | 0.895 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 24.8 | 0.823 | 23.2, 26.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.40 | 1.170 | -0.889, 3.70 | 0.233 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.11 | 0.772 | -2.63, 0.400 | 0.155 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.51 | 1.113 | -0.670, 3.69 | 0.180 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.031 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.1 | 0.981 | 17.2, 21.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.94 | 1.394 | 0.208, 5.67 | 0.037 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.905 | 1.081 | -1.21, 3.02 | 0.406 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.130 | 1.557 | -3.18, 2.92 | 0.934 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.045 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.7 | 0.542 | 9.68, 11.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.811 | 0.771 | -0.699, 2.32 | 0.295 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.366 | 0.491 | -0.596, 1.33 | 0.459 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.456 | 0.707 | -1.84, 0.930 | 0.522 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.0 | 0.813 | 13.4, 16.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.102 | 1.156 | -2.37, 2.16 | 0.930 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.642 | 0.867 | -1.06, 2.34 | 0.462 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.461 | 1.248 | -2.91, 1.99 | 0.713 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.5 | 0.937 | 19.7, 23.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.909 | 1.332 | -1.70, 3.52 | 0.496 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.783 | 0.963 | -1.10, 2.67 | 0.420 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.536 | 1.387 | -3.25, 2.18 | 0.700 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.2 | 0.629 | 14.9, 17.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.00 | 0.894 | -0.749, 2.76 | 0.264 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.173 | 0.717 | -1.23, 1.58 | 0.810 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.32 | 1.032 | -0.701, 3.35 | 0.205 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.038 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.406 | 12.3, 13.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.10 | 0.578 | -0.028, 2.24 | 0.058 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.520 | 0.477 | -1.46, 0.416 | 0.280 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.604 | 0.687 | -0.743, 1.95 | 0.382 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.054 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.6 | 0.436 | 15.7, 17.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.09 | 0.619 | -0.120, 2.31 | 0.080 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.265 | 0.489 | -0.693, 1.22 | 0.590 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.136 | 0.703 | -1.24, 1.51 | 0.848 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.036 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 11.9 | 0.459 | 11.0, 12.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.69 | 0.652 | 0.414, 2.97 | 0.011 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.649 | 0.414 | -0.162, 1.46 | 0.122 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.337 | 0.596 | -1.51, 0.831 | 0.574 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.061 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 28.5 | 0.820 | 26.9, 30.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.79 | 1.166 | 0.500, 5.07 | 0.019 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.887 | 0.756 | -0.595, 2.37 | 0.246 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.144 | 1.090 | -2.28, 1.99 | 0.895 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.057 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.6 | 1.326 | 25.0, 30.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -2.13 | 1.884 | -5.82, 1.56 | 0.261 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.12 | 1.176 | -1.18, 3.42 | 0.345 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.99 | 1.694 | -6.31, 0.331 | 0.083 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.033 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.7 | 0.705 | 12.3, 15.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.59 | 1.002 | -0.378, 3.55 | 0.116 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.155 | 0.690 | -1.20, 1.51 | 0.823 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.608 | 0.994 | -1.34, 2.56 | 0.543 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.034 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 16.0 | 0.554 | 14.9, 17.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.08 | 0.787 | -0.462, 2.62 | 0.172 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.142 | 0.534 | -0.904, 1.19 | 0.792 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.179 | 0.769 | -1.69, 1.33 | 0.817 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.6 | 1.195 | 27.3, 32.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.67 | 1.699 | -0.663, 6.00 | 0.119 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.294 | 1.120 | -1.90, 2.49 | 0.794 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.439 | 1.614 | -2.72, 3.60 | 0.787 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.028 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.9 | 0.227 | 12.5, 13.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.410 | 0.322 | -1.04, 0.222 | 0.206 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.108 | 0.319 | -0.733, 0.517 | 0.736 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.357 | 0.459 | -0.542, 1.26 | 0.441 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.8 | 0.456 | 13.9, 15.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.649 | 0.649 | -0.623, 1.92 | 0.319 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.129 | 0.589 | -1.02, 1.28 | 0.827 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.390 | 0.847 | -2.05, 1.27 | 0.646 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.3 | 0.583 | 12.2, 14.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.436 | 0.829 | -1.19, 2.06 | 0.600 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.270 | 0.643 | -0.990, 1.53 | 0.676 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.036 | 0.926 | -1.85, 1.78 | 0.969 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 28.1 | 0.930 | 26.3, 29.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.08 | 1.322 | -1.51, 3.68 | 0.414 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.424 | 1.091 | -1.71, 2.56 | 0.698 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.400 | 1.570 | -3.48, 2.68 | 0.800 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 18.9 | 0.608 | 17.7, 20.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.08 | 0.864 | -0.614, 2.77 | 0.214 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.206 | 0.558 | -0.888, 1.30 | 0.713 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.569 | 0.804 | -2.14, 1.01 | 0.482 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.3 | 0.356 | 13.6, 15.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.761 | 0.506 | -0.231, 1.75 | 0.135 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.078 | 0.463 | -0.830, 0.985 | 0.867 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.185 | 0.667 | -1.12, 1.49 | 0.782 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.027 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 12.2 | 0.445 | 11.3, 13.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.42 | 0.633 | -2.67, -0.184 | 0.026 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.424 | 0.453 | -1.31, 0.464 | 0.353 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.370 | 0.653 | -0.910, 1.65 | 0.573 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.043 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.4 | 0.510 | 9.42, 11.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.849 | 0.725 | -2.27, 0.573 | 0.244 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.044 | 0.502 | -0.939, 1.03 | 0.931 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.13 | 0.722 | -2.54, 0.291 | 0.125 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.038 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.2 | 0.532 | 9.14, 11.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.18 | 0.756 | -2.66, 0.302 | 0.121 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.105 | 0.543 | -1.17, 0.959 | 0.847 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.583 | 0.782 | -2.12, 0.950 | 0.459 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.036 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.60 | 0.515 | 7.59, 9.61 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.988 | 0.732 | -2.42, 0.447 | 0.180 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.597 | 0.527 | -0.437, 1.63 | 0.262 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.19 | 0.760 | -2.68, 0.297 | 0.122 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.041 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 29.2 | 1.439 | 26.4, 32.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -3.02 | 2.046 | -7.03, 0.993 | 0.143 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.533 | 1.325 | -2.06, 3.13 | 0.689 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.89 | 1.909 | -6.63, 0.856 | 0.136 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.043 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.31) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.16 (95% CI [2.84, 3.48], t(145) = 19.08, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.32], t(145) = -0.59, p = 0.553; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.62], t(145) = 0.55, p = 0.586; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.52])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.27, 1.11], t(145) = 1.19, p = 0.232; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.95])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.72 (95% CI [16.93, 18.51], t(145) = 44.19, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.67, 1.56], t(145) = 0.78, p = 0.437; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.55])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.28, 0.89], t(145) = -0.35, p = 0.726; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-1.03, 2.10], t(145) = 0.67, p = 0.502; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.74])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.62 (95% CI [28.20, 31.04], t(145) = 40.92, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-0.98, 3.05], t(145) = 1.00, p = 0.315; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.60])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.66, 2.34], t(145) = 1.10, p = 0.273; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.46])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-1.22, 3.11], t(145) = 0.86, p = 0.392; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.61])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.82 (95% CI [11.26, 12.38], t(145) = 41.40, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.41, 1.18], t(145) = 0.95, p = 0.344; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.58])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.21, -0.03], t(145) = -2.06, p = 0.040; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.60, -0.01])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.13, 1.58], t(145) = 1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.78])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.26 (95% CI [16.39, 18.13], t(145) = 39.07, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.78, 1.69], t(145) = 0.72, p = 0.469; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.54])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-1.39, 0.58], t(145) = -0.80, p = 0.421; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.46, 95% CI [0.04, 2.88], t(145) = 2.01, p = 0.044; Std. beta = 0.46, 95% CI [0.01, 0.91])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.06 (95% CI [12.26, 13.86], t(145) = 31.93, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.87, 1.41], t(145) = 0.46, p = 0.647; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.43, 1.18], t(145) = 0.91, p = 0.364; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.16, 2.17], t(145) = 1.69, p = 0.091; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.73])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.45) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.24 (95% CI [9.61, 10.87], t(145) = 31.86, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.69, 95% CI [-1.58, 0.21], t(145) = -1.51, p = 0.131; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.09])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-1.12, 0.58], t(145) = -0.62, p = 0.538; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.45, 95% CI [0.23, 2.67], t(145) = 2.33, p = 0.020; Std. beta = 0.64, 95% CI [0.10, 1.18])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.32 (95% CI [28.67, 33.97], t(145) = 23.17, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.03, 95% CI [-5.80, 1.73], t(145) = -1.06, p = 0.290; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.18])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-2.55, 1.78], t(145) = -0.35, p = 0.730; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.19])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.90, 95% CI [-4.02, 2.22], t(145) = -0.56, p = 0.572; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.99e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.40 (95% CI [21.09, 23.71], t(145) = 33.48, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-1.51, 2.22], t(145) = 0.37, p = 0.709; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-1.49, 1.12], t(145) = -0.27, p = 0.783; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.75, 2.01], t(145) = 0.13, p = 0.895; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.43])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.80 (95% CI [23.19, 26.41], t(145) = 30.13, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.40, 95% CI [-0.89, 3.70], t(145) = 1.20, p = 0.230; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.64])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.11, 95% CI [-2.63, 0.40], t(145) = -1.44, p = 0.149; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.07])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.51, 95% CI [-0.67, 3.69], t(145) = 1.36, p = 0.174; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.64])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.08 (95% CI [17.16, 21.00], t(145) = 19.45, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.94, 95% CI [0.21, 5.67], t(145) = 2.11, p = 0.035; Std. beta = 0.42, 95% CI [0.03, 0.81])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-1.21, 3.02], t(145) = 0.84, p = 0.402; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.43])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-3.18, 2.92], t(145) = -0.08, p = 0.934; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.34e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.74 (95% CI [9.68, 11.80], t(145) = 19.81, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-0.70, 2.32], t(145) = 1.05, p = 0.293; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.61])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.33], t(145) = 0.75, p = 0.456; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.84, 0.93], t(145) = -0.64, p = 0.519; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.10e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.00 (95% CI [13.41, 16.59], t(145) = 18.45, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-2.37, 2.16], t(145) = -0.09, p = 0.930; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.38])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-1.06, 2.34], t(145) = 0.74, p = 0.459; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-2.91, 1.99], t(145) = -0.37, p = 0.712; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.71e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.54 (95% CI [19.70, 23.38], t(145) = 22.98, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-1.70, 3.52], t(145) = 0.68, p = 0.495; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.54])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-1.10, 2.67], t(145) = 0.81, p = 0.416; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-3.25, 2.18], t(145) = -0.39, p = 0.699; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.18 (95% CI [14.95, 17.41], t(145) = 25.72, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.75, 2.76], t(145) = 1.12, p = 0.262; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.62])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.23, 1.58], t(145) = 0.24, p = 0.809; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.32, 95% CI [-0.70, 3.35], t(145) = 1.28, p = 0.200; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.75])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.12 (95% CI [12.32, 13.92], t(145) = 32.28, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.10, 95% CI [-0.03, 2.24], t(145) = 1.91, p = 0.056; Std. beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-9.47e-03, 0.76])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-1.46, 0.42], t(145) = -1.09, p = 0.276; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.14])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.74, 1.95], t(145) = 0.88, p = 0.379; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.66])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.60 (95% CI [15.75, 17.45], t(145) = 38.09, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.12, 2.31], t(145) = 1.77, p = 0.077; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.74])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.69, 1.22], t(145) = 0.54, p = 0.588; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-1.24, 1.51], t(145) = 0.19, p = 0.847; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.49])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.88 (95% CI [10.98, 12.78], t(145) = 25.90, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.69, 95% CI [0.41, 2.97], t(145) = 2.59, p = 0.009; Std. beta = 0.51, 95% CI [0.13, 0.90])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.16, 1.46], t(145) = 1.57, p = 0.117; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-1.51, 0.83], t(145) = -0.57, p = 0.571; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.48 (95% CI [26.87, 30.09], t(145) = 34.72, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.79, 95% CI [0.50, 5.07], t(145) = 2.39, p = 0.017; Std. beta = 0.47, 95% CI [0.08, 0.86])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.60, 2.37], t(145) = 1.17, p = 0.241; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-2.28, 1.99], t(145) = -0.13, p = 0.895; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.60 (95% CI [25.00, 30.20], t(145) = 20.82, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.13, 95% CI [-5.82, 1.56], t(145) = -1.13, p = 0.258; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.16])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.12, 95% CI [-1.18, 3.42], t(145) = 0.95, p = 0.341; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.99, 95% CI [-6.31, 0.33], t(145) = -1.76, p = 0.078; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.68 (95% CI [12.30, 15.06], t(145) = 19.41, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.59, 95% CI [-0.38, 3.55], t(145) = 1.58, p = 0.114; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.72])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-1.20, 1.51], t(145) = 0.22, p = 0.823; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-1.34, 2.56], t(145) = 0.61, p = 0.541; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.52])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.96 (95% CI [14.87, 17.05], t(145) = 28.82, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-0.46, 2.62], t(145) = 1.37, p = 0.170; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.67])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.90, 1.19], t(145) = 0.27, p = 0.791; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-1.69, 1.33], t(145) = -0.23, p = 0.816; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.64 (95% CI [27.30, 31.98], t(145) = 24.80, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.67, 95% CI [-0.66, 6.00], t(145) = 1.57, p = 0.116; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.71])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-1.90, 2.49], t(145) = 0.26, p = 0.793; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-2.72, 3.60], t(145) = 0.27, p = 0.786; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.43])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.38) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.90 (95% CI [12.46, 13.34], t(145) = 56.87, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.22], t(145) = -1.27, p = 0.203; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.14])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.52], t(145) = -0.34, p = 0.734; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.54, 1.26], t(145) = 0.78, p = 0.436; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.80])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.27e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.78 (95% CI [13.89, 15.67], t(145) = 32.38, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.62, 1.92], t(145) = 1.00, p = 0.317; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.59])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.02, 1.28], t(145) = 0.22, p = 0.827; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-2.05, 1.27], t(145) = -0.46, p = 0.645; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.39])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.45e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.34 (95% CI [12.20, 14.48], t(145) = 22.87, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-1.19, 2.06], t(145) = 0.53, p = 0.599; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.99, 1.53], t(145) = 0.42, p = 0.674; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.85, 1.78], t(145) = -0.04, p = 0.969; Std. beta = -8.74e-03, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.43])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.63e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.12 (95% CI [26.30, 29.94], t(145) = 30.23, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-1.51, 3.68], t(145) = 0.82, p = 0.412; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.56])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-1.71, 2.56], t(145) = 0.39, p = 0.697; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-3.48, 2.68], t(145) = -0.25, p = 0.799; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.40])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.86 (95% CI [17.67, 20.05], t(145) = 31.03, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-0.61, 2.77], t(145) = 1.25, p = 0.212; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.65])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.89, 1.30], t(145) = 0.37, p = 0.712; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-2.14, 1.01], t(145) = -0.71, p = 0.479; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.24])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.30 (95% CI [13.60, 15.00], t(145) = 40.15, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.23, 1.75], t(145) = 1.50, p = 0.133; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.69])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.99], t(145) = 0.17, p = 0.867; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-1.12, 1.49], t(145) = 0.28, p = 0.781; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.59])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.18 (95% CI [11.31, 13.05], t(145) = 27.34, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.42, 95% CI [-2.67, -0.18], t(145) = -2.25, p = 0.024; Std. beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-0.83, -0.06])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.31, 0.46], t(145) = -0.94, p = 0.349; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.14])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.91, 1.65], t(145) = 0.57, p = 0.571; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.51])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.42 (95% CI [9.42, 11.42], t(145) = 20.43, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.85, 95% CI [-2.27, 0.57], t(145) = -1.17, p = 0.242; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.16])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.94, 1.03], t(145) = 0.09, p = 0.930; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.13, 95% CI [-2.54, 0.29], t(145) = -1.56, p = 0.119; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.08])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.18 (95% CI [9.14, 11.22], t(145) = 19.14, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.18, 95% CI [-2.66, 0.30], t(145) = -1.56, p = 0.119; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.08])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-1.17, 0.96], t(145) = -0.19, p = 0.846; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-2.12, 0.95], t(145) = -0.75, p = 0.456; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.60 (95% CI [7.59, 9.61], t(145) = 16.70, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.99, 95% CI [-2.42, 0.45], t(145) = -1.35, p = 0.177; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.12])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.63], t(145) = 1.13, p = 0.258; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.19, 95% CI [-2.68, 0.30], t(145) = -1.57, p = 0.117; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.08])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.20 (95% CI [26.38, 32.02], t(145) = 20.29, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.02, 95% CI [-7.03, 0.99], t(145) = -1.47, p = 0.140; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.09])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-2.06, 3.13], t(145) = 0.40, p = 0.688; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.89, 95% CI [-6.63, 0.86], t(145) = -1.51, p = 0.131; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.08])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 478.742 | 487.794 | -236.371 | 472.742 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 479.590 | 497.693 | -233.795 | 467.590 | 5.152 | 3 | 0.161 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 738.090 | 747.142 | -366.045 | 732.090 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 742.189 | 760.293 | -365.095 | 730.189 | 1.901 | 3 | 0.593 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 900.076 | 909.128 | -447.038 | 894.076 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 898.199 | 916.303 | -443.099 | 886.199 | 7.877 | 3 | 0.049 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 617.882 | 626.934 | -305.941 | 611.882 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 617.246 | 635.350 | -302.623 | 605.246 | 6.636 | 3 | 0.084 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 756.559 | 765.611 | -375.280 | 750.559 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 755.721 | 773.824 | -371.860 | 743.721 | 6.839 | 3 | 0.077 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 727.032 | 736.084 | -360.516 | 721.032 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 721.334 | 739.438 | -354.667 | 709.334 | 11.698 | 3 | 0.008 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 674.844 | 683.895 | -334.422 | 668.844 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 673.352 | 691.456 | -330.676 | 661.352 | 7.491 | 3 | 0.058 |
symptom | null | 3 | 1,059.259 | 1,068.311 | -526.629 | 1,053.259 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 1,062.372 | 1,080.475 | -525.186 | 1,050.372 | 2.887 | 3 | 0.409 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 863.025 | 872.076 | -428.512 | 857.025 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 868.749 | 886.853 | -428.375 | 856.749 | 0.275 | 3 | 0.965 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 924.805 | 933.857 | -459.402 | 918.805 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 925.819 | 943.923 | -456.909 | 913.819 | 4.986 | 3 | 0.173 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 993.643 | 1,002.695 | -493.821 | 987.643 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 993.673 | 1,011.777 | -490.836 | 981.673 | 5.970 | 3 | 0.113 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 791.692 | 800.744 | -392.846 | 785.692 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 796.236 | 814.340 | -392.118 | 784.236 | 1.456 | 3 | 0.692 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 928.644 | 937.696 | -461.322 | 922.644 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 933.989 | 952.093 | -460.995 | 921.989 | 0.655 | 3 | 0.884 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 968.626 | 977.678 | -481.313 | 962.626 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 973.530 | 991.634 | -480.765 | 961.530 | 1.096 | 3 | 0.778 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 863.213 | 872.265 | -428.606 | 857.213 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 862.481 | 880.585 | -425.241 | 850.481 | 6.732 | 3 | 0.081 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 734.026 | 743.078 | -364.013 | 728.026 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 733.193 | 751.297 | -360.597 | 721.193 | 6.833 | 3 | 0.077 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 748.824 | 757.876 | -371.412 | 742.824 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 750.147 | 768.251 | -369.073 | 738.147 | 4.677 | 3 | 0.197 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 748.720 | 757.772 | -371.360 | 742.720 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 745.429 | 763.533 | -366.714 | 733.429 | 9.291 | 3 | 0.026 |
els | null | 3 | 925.251 | 934.303 | -459.626 | 919.251 | |||
els | random | 6 | 923.110 | 941.213 | -455.555 | 911.110 | 8.142 | 3 | 0.043 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 1,064.257 | 1,073.309 | -529.129 | 1,058.257 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 1,064.345 | 1,082.448 | -526.172 | 1,052.345 | 5.913 | 3 | 0.116 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 881.489 | 890.541 | -437.745 | 875.489 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 882.945 | 901.049 | -435.473 | 870.945 | 4.544 | 3 | 0.208 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 804.586 | 813.638 | -399.293 | 798.586 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 808.637 | 826.740 | -398.318 | 796.637 | 1.950 | 3 | 0.583 |
shs | null | 3 | 1,035.685 | 1,044.736 | -514.842 | 1,029.685 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 1,038.297 | 1,056.401 | -513.149 | 1,026.297 | 3.387 | 3 | 0.336 |
esteem | null | 3 | 566.966 | 576.018 | -280.483 | 560.966 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 571.161 | 589.264 | -279.580 | 559.161 | 1.805 | 3 | 0.614 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 770.957 | 780.009 | -382.479 | 764.957 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 775.909 | 794.012 | -381.954 | 763.909 | 1.048 | 3 | 0.790 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 831.316 | 840.368 | -412.658 | 825.316 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 836.712 | 854.815 | -412.356 | 824.712 | 0.605 | 3 | 0.895 |
mlq | null | 3 | 977.803 | 986.854 | -485.901 | 971.803 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 983.028 | 1,001.131 | -485.514 | 971.028 | 0.775 | 3 | 0.855 |
empower | null | 3 | 827.918 | 836.970 | -410.959 | 821.918 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 832.136 | 850.240 | -410.068 | 820.136 | 1.783 | 3 | 0.619 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 699.132 | 708.183 | -346.566 | 693.132 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 701.688 | 719.792 | -344.844 | 689.688 | 3.443 | 3 | 0.328 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 747.620 | 756.672 | -370.810 | 741.620 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 747.993 | 766.097 | -367.997 | 735.993 | 5.627 | 3 | 0.131 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 786.855 | 795.907 | -390.428 | 780.855 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 785.736 | 803.840 | -386.868 | 773.736 | 7.119 | 3 | 0.068 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 800.828 | 809.880 | -397.414 | 794.828 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 801.827 | 819.931 | -394.914 | 789.827 | 5.001 | 3 | 0.172 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 792.447 | 801.498 | -393.223 | 786.447 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 792.353 | 810.456 | -390.176 | 780.353 | 6.094 | 3 | 0.107 |
sss | null | 3 | 1,093.605 | 1,102.657 | -543.803 | 1,087.605 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 1,092.767 | 1,110.870 | -540.383 | 1,080.767 | 6.839 | 3 | 0.077 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 50 | 3.16 ± 1.17 | 49 | 3.02 ± 1.17 | 0.554 | 0.141 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 27 | 3.29 ± 1.16 | -0.136 | 25 | 3.58 ± 1.16 | -0.563 | 0.380 | -0.286 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 50 | 17.72 ± 2.84 | 49 | 18.16 ± 2.84 | 0.438 | -0.202 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 27 | 17.53 ± 2.75 | 0.088 | 25 | 18.50 ± 2.74 | -0.155 | 0.201 | -0.445 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 50 | 29.62 ± 5.12 | 49 | 30.65 ± 5.12 | 0.317 | -0.353 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 27 | 30.46 ± 4.57 | -0.287 | 25 | 32.44 ± 4.53 | -0.609 | 0.119 | -0.675 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 50 | 11.82 ± 2.02 | 49 | 12.20 ± 2.02 | 0.346 | -0.333 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 27 | 11.20 ± 1.80 | 0.538 | 25 | 12.31 ± 1.79 | -0.091 | 0.027 | -0.962 |
ras_goal | 1st | 50 | 17.26 ± 3.12 | 49 | 17.71 ± 3.12 | 0.471 | -0.234 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 27 | 16.86 ± 2.85 | 0.209 | 25 | 18.77 ± 2.83 | -0.544 | 0.016 | -0.988 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 50 | 13.06 ± 2.89 | 49 | 13.33 ± 2.89 | 0.648 | -0.170 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 27 | 13.43 ± 2.55 | -0.239 | 25 | 14.70 ± 2.52 | -0.878 | 0.073 | -0.809 |
ras_domination | 1st | 50 | 10.24 ± 2.27 | 49 | 9.55 ± 2.27 | 0.134 | 0.404 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 27 | 9.97 ± 2.18 | 0.156 | 25 | 10.73 ± 2.18 | -0.693 | 0.211 | -0.446 |
symptom | 1st | 50 | 31.32 ± 9.56 | 49 | 29.29 ± 9.56 | 0.292 | 0.490 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 27 | 30.94 ± 7.99 | 0.092 | 25 | 28.00 ± 7.88 | 0.309 | 0.185 | 0.706 |
slof_work | 1st | 50 | 22.40 ± 4.73 | 49 | 22.76 ± 4.73 | 0.710 | -0.140 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 27 | 22.22 ± 4.15 | 0.072 | 25 | 22.70 ± 4.11 | 0.022 | 0.675 | -0.191 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 50 | 24.80 ± 5.82 | 49 | 26.20 ± 5.82 | 0.233 | -0.480 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 27 | 23.69 ± 5.03 | 0.381 | 25 | 26.60 ± 4.97 | -0.136 | 0.037 | -0.997 |
satisfaction | 1st | 50 | 19.08 ± 6.94 | 49 | 22.02 ± 6.94 | 0.037 | -0.709 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 27 | 19.99 ± 6.26 | -0.218 | 25 | 22.80 ± 6.22 | -0.187 | 0.107 | -0.678 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 50 | 10.74 ± 3.83 | 49 | 11.55 ± 3.83 | 0.295 | -0.438 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 27 | 11.11 ± 3.28 | -0.197 | 25 | 11.46 ± 3.24 | 0.049 | 0.695 | -0.192 |
mhc_social | 1st | 50 | 15.00 ± 5.75 | 49 | 14.90 ± 5.75 | 0.930 | 0.031 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 27 | 15.64 ± 5.14 | -0.194 | 25 | 15.08 ± 5.10 | -0.055 | 0.693 | 0.170 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 50 | 21.54 ± 6.63 | 49 | 22.45 ± 6.63 | 0.496 | -0.248 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 27 | 22.32 ± 5.87 | -0.213 | 25 | 22.70 ± 5.81 | -0.067 | 0.818 | -0.102 |
resilisnce | 1st | 50 | 16.18 ± 4.45 | 49 | 17.18 ± 4.45 | 0.264 | -0.364 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 27 | 16.35 ± 4.06 | -0.063 | 25 | 18.68 ± 4.03 | -0.542 | 0.040 | -0.843 |
social_provision | 1st | 50 | 13.12 ± 2.87 | 49 | 14.22 ± 2.87 | 0.058 | -0.599 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 27 | 12.60 ± 2.65 | 0.282 | 25 | 14.31 ± 2.63 | -0.046 | 0.021 | -0.927 |
els_value_living | 1st | 50 | 16.60 ± 3.08 | 49 | 17.69 ± 3.08 | 0.080 | -0.583 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 27 | 16.86 ± 2.80 | -0.141 | 25 | 18.09 ± 2.78 | -0.213 | 0.114 | -0.655 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 50 | 11.88 ± 3.24 | 49 | 13.57 ± 3.24 | 0.011 | -1.083 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 27 | 12.53 ± 2.77 | -0.415 | 25 | 13.88 ± 2.74 | -0.199 | 0.079 | -0.867 |
els | 1st | 50 | 28.48 ± 5.80 | 49 | 31.27 ± 5.80 | 0.019 | -0.974 | ||
els | 2nd | 27 | 29.37 ± 4.99 | -0.310 | 25 | 32.01 ± 4.93 | -0.260 | 0.057 | -0.923 |
social_connect | 1st | 50 | 27.60 ± 9.37 | 49 | 25.47 ± 9.37 | 0.261 | 0.480 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 27 | 28.72 ± 7.98 | -0.253 | 25 | 23.60 ± 7.88 | 0.421 | 0.021 | 1.154 |
shs_agency | 1st | 50 | 13.68 ± 4.98 | 49 | 15.27 ± 4.98 | 0.116 | -0.605 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 27 | 13.83 ± 4.35 | -0.059 | 25 | 16.03 ± 4.31 | -0.291 | 0.070 | -0.837 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 50 | 15.96 ± 3.92 | 49 | 17.04 ± 3.92 | 0.172 | -0.534 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 27 | 16.10 ± 3.41 | -0.070 | 25 | 17.00 ± 3.37 | 0.019 | 0.339 | -0.446 |
shs | 1st | 50 | 29.64 ± 8.45 | 49 | 32.31 ± 8.45 | 0.119 | -0.629 | ||
shs | 2nd | 27 | 29.93 ± 7.30 | -0.069 | 25 | 33.04 ± 7.21 | -0.173 | 0.125 | -0.732 |
esteem | 1st | 50 | 12.90 ± 1.60 | 49 | 12.49 ± 1.60 | 0.205 | 0.324 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 27 | 12.79 ± 1.56 | 0.086 | 25 | 12.74 ± 1.56 | -0.197 | 0.903 | 0.042 |
mlq_search | 1st | 50 | 14.78 ± 3.23 | 49 | 15.43 ± 3.23 | 0.319 | -0.282 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 27 | 14.91 ± 3.06 | -0.056 | 25 | 15.17 ± 3.05 | 0.114 | 0.761 | -0.112 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 50 | 13.34 ± 4.12 | 49 | 13.78 ± 4.12 | 0.600 | -0.177 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 27 | 13.61 ± 3.73 | -0.110 | 25 | 14.01 ± 3.70 | -0.095 | 0.699 | -0.162 |
mlq | 1st | 50 | 28.12 ± 6.58 | 49 | 29.20 ± 6.58 | 0.414 | -0.257 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 27 | 28.54 ± 6.05 | -0.101 | 25 | 29.23 ± 6.02 | -0.006 | 0.684 | -0.162 |
empower | 1st | 50 | 18.86 ± 4.30 | 49 | 19.94 ± 4.30 | 0.214 | -0.511 | ||
empower | 2nd | 27 | 19.07 ± 3.69 | -0.098 | 25 | 19.58 ± 3.65 | 0.172 | 0.617 | -0.242 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 50 | 14.30 ± 2.52 | 49 | 15.06 ± 2.52 | 0.135 | -0.420 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 27 | 14.38 ± 2.39 | -0.043 | 25 | 15.32 ± 2.39 | -0.145 | 0.156 | -0.522 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 50 | 12.18 ± 3.15 | 49 | 10.76 ± 3.15 | 0.026 | 0.826 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 27 | 11.76 ± 2.78 | 0.246 | 25 | 10.70 ± 2.75 | 0.032 | 0.172 | 0.611 |
sss_affective | 1st | 50 | 10.42 ± 3.61 | 49 | 9.57 ± 3.61 | 0.244 | 0.445 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 27 | 10.46 ± 3.15 | -0.023 | 25 | 8.49 ± 3.12 | 0.568 | 0.025 | 1.036 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 50 | 10.18 ± 3.76 | 49 | 9.00 ± 3.76 | 0.121 | 0.570 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 27 | 10.07 ± 3.32 | 0.051 | 25 | 8.31 ± 3.29 | 0.333 | 0.057 | 0.852 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 50 | 8.60 ± 3.64 | 49 | 7.61 ± 3.64 | 0.180 | 0.492 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 27 | 9.20 ± 3.22 | -0.297 | 25 | 7.02 ± 3.19 | 0.296 | 0.015 | 1.085 |
sss | 1st | 50 | 29.20 ± 10.18 | 49 | 26.18 ± 10.18 | 0.143 | 0.602 | ||
sss | 2nd | 27 | 29.73 ± 8.75 | -0.106 | 25 | 23.83 ± 8.65 | 0.470 | 0.016 | 1.178 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(139.30) = -0.59, p = 0.554, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-0.60 to 0.33)
2st
t(146.10) = 0.88, p = 0.380, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.92)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(133.30) = 0.78, p = 0.438, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.57)
2st
t(145.89) = 1.29, p = 0.201, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.48)
ras_confidence
1st
t(115.83) = 1.00, p = 0.317, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-1.00 to 3.07)
2st
t(146.97) = 1.57, p = 0.119, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (-0.52 to 4.47)
ras_willingness
1st
t(115.84) = 0.95, p = 0.346, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.42 to 1.19)
2st
t(146.98) = 2.23, p = 0.027, Cohen d = -0.96, 95% CI (0.13 to 2.09)
ras_goal
1st
t(119.54) = 0.72, p = 0.471, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.79 to 1.70)
2st
t(146.88) = 2.43, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.99, 95% CI (0.36 to 3.47)
ras_reliance
1st
t(113.74) = 0.46, p = 0.648, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.89 to 1.42)
2st
t(146.72) = 1.80, p = 0.073, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (-0.12 to 2.66)
ras_domination
1st
t(130.98) = -1.51, p = 0.134, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.59 to 0.21)
2st
t(145.94) = 1.26, p = 0.211, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.44 to 1.96)
symptom
1st
t(107.31) = -1.06, p = 0.292, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-5.84 to 1.77)
2st
t(142.12) = -1.33, p = 0.185, Cohen d = 0.71, 95% CI (-7.29 to 1.42)
slof_work
1st
t(113.23) = 0.37, p = 0.710, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.53 to 2.24)
2st
t(146.60) = 0.42, p = 0.675, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.78 to 2.75)
slof_relationship
1st
t(111.15) = 1.20, p = 0.233, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.91 to 3.72)
2st
t(145.79) = 2.10, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -1.00, 95% CI (0.17 to 5.66)
satisfaction
1st
t(117.78) = 2.11, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (0.18 to 5.70)
2st
t(146.98) = 1.62, p = 0.107, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (-0.61 to 6.23)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(110.00) = 1.05, p = 0.295, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.72 to 2.34)
2st
t(145.05) = 0.39, p = 0.695, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.14)
mhc_social
1st
t(116.16) = -0.09, p = 0.930, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.39 to 2.19)
2st
t(146.99) = -0.40, p = 0.693, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-3.37 to 2.25)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(114.54) = 0.68, p = 0.496, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.73 to 3.55)
2st
t(146.86) = 0.23, p = 0.818, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-2.83 to 3.57)
resilisnce
1st
t(119.53) = 1.12, p = 0.264, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.77 to 2.77)
2st
t(146.88) = 2.07, p = 0.040, Cohen d = -0.84, 95% CI (0.11 to 4.54)
social_provision
1st
t(121.26) = 1.91, p = 0.058, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-0.04 to 2.25)
2st
t(146.73) = 2.33, p = 0.021, Cohen d = -0.93, 95% CI (0.26 to 3.16)
els_value_living
1st
t(118.65) = 1.77, p = 0.080, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.13 to 2.32)
2st
t(146.94) = 1.59, p = 0.114, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.30 to 2.76)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(109.89) = 2.59, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -1.08, 95% CI (0.40 to 2.98)
2st
t(144.98) = 1.77, p = 0.079, Cohen d = -0.87, 95% CI (-0.16 to 2.87)
els
1st
t(110.58) = 2.39, p = 0.019, Cohen d = -0.97, 95% CI (0.47 to 5.10)
2st
t(145.46) = 1.92, p = 0.057, Cohen d = -0.92, 95% CI (-0.08 to 5.36)
social_connect
1st
t(109.41) = -1.13, p = 0.261, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-5.86 to 1.60)
2st
t(144.58) = -2.33, p = 0.021, Cohen d = 1.15, 95% CI (-9.47 to -0.77)
shs_agency
1st
t(112.63) = 1.58, p = 0.116, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-0.40 to 3.57)
2st
t(146.43) = 1.83, p = 0.070, Cohen d = -0.84, 95% CI (-0.18 to 4.57)
shs_pathway
1st
t(112.06) = 1.37, p = 0.172, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.48 to 2.64)
2st
t(146.22) = 0.96, p = 0.339, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.96 to 2.76)
shs
1st
t(111.11) = 1.57, p = 0.119, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-0.70 to 6.03)
2st
t(145.77) = 1.54, p = 0.125, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (-0.87 to 7.08)
esteem
1st
t(134.54) = -1.27, p = 0.205, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-1.05 to 0.23)
2st
t(145.90) = -0.12, p = 0.903, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.91 to 0.80)
mlq_search
1st
t(127.54) = 1.00, p = 0.319, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.93)
2st
t(146.13) = 0.30, p = 0.761, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.42 to 1.93)
mlq_presence
1st
t(117.77) = 0.53, p = 0.600, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.21 to 2.08)
2st
t(146.98) = 0.39, p = 0.699, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.64 to 2.44)
mlq
1st
t(121.18) = 0.82, p = 0.414, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.53 to 3.70)
2st
t(146.74) = 0.41, p = 0.684, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-2.63 to 3.99)
empower
1st
t(110.44) = 1.25, p = 0.214, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.63 to 2.79)
2st
t(145.37) = 0.50, p = 0.617, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.50 to 2.52)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(128.18) = 1.50, p = 0.135, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.24 to 1.76)
2st
t(146.08) = 1.43, p = 0.156, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.36 to 2.26)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(114.13) = -2.25, p = 0.026, Cohen d = 0.83, 95% CI (-2.68 to -0.17)
2st
t(146.79) = -1.37, p = 0.172, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-2.57 to 0.46)
sss_affective
1st
t(112.79) = -1.17, p = 0.244, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-2.29 to 0.59)
2st
t(146.47) = -2.27, p = 0.025, Cohen d = 1.04, 95% CI (-3.69 to -0.25)
sss_behavior
1st
t(114.28) = -1.56, p = 0.121, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-2.68 to 0.32)
2st
t(146.82) = -1.92, p = 0.057, Cohen d = 0.85, 95% CI (-3.58 to 0.05)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(114.41) = -1.35, p = 0.180, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-2.44 to 0.46)
2st
t(146.84) = -2.45, p = 0.015, Cohen d = 1.08, 95% CI (-3.94 to -0.42)
sss
1st
t(110.53) = -1.47, p = 0.143, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-7.07 to 1.04)
2st
t(145.43) = -2.45, p = 0.016, Cohen d = 1.18, 95% CI (-10.67 to -1.13)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(74.85) = 2.18, p = 0.065, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.07)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(70.08) = 0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.81 to 1.49)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(59.55) = 2.24, p = 0.058, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (0.19 to 3.38)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(59.55) = 0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.52 to 0.73)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(61.57) = 2.01, p = 0.097, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.01 to 2.10)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(58.43) = 3.21, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.88, 95% CI (0.52 to 2.24)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(68.48) = 2.62, p = 0.021, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (0.28 to 2.08)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(55.12) = -1.11, p = 0.540, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-3.59 to 1.02)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(58.17) = -0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.44 to 1.33)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(57.08) = 0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.21 to 2.01)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(60.60) = 0.69, p = 0.987, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.48 to 3.03)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(56.49) = -0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.11 to 0.93)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(59.72) = 0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.62 to 1.99)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(58.85) = 0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.76 to 2.25)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(61.56) = 2.00, p = 0.099, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.00 to 2.99)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(62.53) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.91 to 1.08)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(61.07) = 0.79, p = 0.868, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.42)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(56.44) = 0.72, p = 0.944, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.55 to 1.17)
els
1st vs 2st
t(56.79) = 0.94, p = 0.698, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.83 to 2.32)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(56.19) = -1.53, p = 0.265, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-4.32 to 0.58)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(57.85) = 1.06, p = 0.585, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.68 to 2.20)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(57.55) = -0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.07)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(57.06) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.60 to 3.07)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(70.98) = 0.75, p = 0.911, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.41 to 0.91)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(66.26) = -0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.48 to 0.96)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(60.59) = 0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.10 to 1.57)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(62.49) = 0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-2.24 to 2.29)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(56.72) = -0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.53 to 0.80)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(66.66) = 0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.23)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(58.64) = -0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.00 to 0.89)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(57.93) = -2.07, p = 0.086, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-2.13 to -0.04)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(58.72) = -1.22, p = 0.456, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.82 to 0.44)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(58.79) = -1.08, p = 0.566, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-1.69 to 0.50)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(56.76) = -1.71, p = 0.187, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-5.12 to 0.41)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(73.10) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.63)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(68.68) = -0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.31 to 0.92)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(58.92) = 1.09, p = 0.559, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.70 to 2.38)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(58.92) = -2.05, p = 0.090, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-1.23 to -0.01)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(60.79) = -0.80, p = 0.853, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-1.42 to 0.61)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(57.88) = 0.91, p = 0.738, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.20)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(67.20) = -0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.14 to 0.60)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(54.79) = -0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-2.60 to 1.84)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(57.63) = -0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.52 to 1.15)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(56.62) = -1.44, p = 0.312, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-2.67 to 0.44)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(59.89) = 0.83, p = 0.815, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.27 to 3.08)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(56.07) = 0.74, p = 0.921, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.35)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(59.08) = 0.74, p = 0.927, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.10 to 2.38)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(58.27) = 0.81, p = 0.843, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.15 to 2.72)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(60.79) = 0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.27 to 1.61)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(61.69) = -1.08, p = 0.565, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.48 to 0.44)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(60.33) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.72 to 1.25)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(56.02) = 1.56, p = 0.247, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.48)
els
1st vs 2st
t(56.35) = 1.17, p = 0.494, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.63 to 2.41)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(55.79) = 0.95, p = 0.692, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.24 to 3.48)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(57.34) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.23 to 1.54)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(57.06) = 0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.93 to 1.21)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(56.60) = 0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.96 to 2.54)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(69.52) = -0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-0.75 to 0.53)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(65.14) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.05 to 1.31)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(59.89) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.02 to 1.56)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(61.65) = 0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.77 to 2.62)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(56.28) = 0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.91 to 1.33)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(65.51) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.85 to 1.01)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(58.07) = -0.93, p = 0.710, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.33 to 0.49)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(57.41) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.96 to 1.05)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(58.14) = -0.19, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.20 to 0.99)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(58.21) = 1.13, p = 0.529, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.66)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(56.33) = 0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-2.13 to 3.20)